Situations are not always as they appear. While a situation, prima facie, may seem ethical, taking a deeper look, one may uncover nuances that lead to seeing the situation as unethical. In this essay, I analyze the Lead-Based Paint Abatement Repair and Maintenance Study (1992) conducted by the Kennedy Krieger Institute, in order to provide an ethical analysis of the study. In doing so, I argue that the ethics of the study shifts depending upon which set of non-moral facts an individual chooses to focus on. My stance, however, is that the study was unethical. Before presenting my argument, I place the study within its historical context. Fourteen years before the Lead-Based Paint Abatement Repair and Maintenance Study was conducted, “the
…show more content…
These principles are (1) equal liberties of citizenship and (2) that “social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage” (2013, 586). Rawls further argues that injustice is “inequalities of social primary goods [which include income and wealth] that are not to the benefit of all” (2013, 587). While the Lead Abatement Study did reduce blood-lead levels in children who were a part of the study, the study is socially unjust and inappropriate because cost should not be a factor in correcting health-hazards in housing. Especially, when the hazard is known to be a neurotoxicant. Placing the study within context, lead-paint poisoning continues to be an “environmental health problem in the United States” (Pollak, 2004, 92). What the lead study of 1992 did was reinforce structural injustice. The study was not a solution towards the underlying problem of lead-paint in housing. The study was a cost-effective band-aid approach. It was a “public health outcome gap, itself rooted in growing social inequalities” (Framer, 2004, 28). While Buchanan justifies “less-expensive, less-effective public health interventions [in one way as] resource or political constraints that do not allow full provision of the higher standard,” the truth is, as Pollak notes it, is not that there were resource constraints, rather “society was not committed” (Buchanan, 2006, 1) (Pollak, 2004, 95). Moreover, the study raises concerns as a social justice issue because the study noted that only landlords could apply to the State loan program for a home to undergo lead reduction improvements. Why were families not given the opportunity to apply for such improvements if their landlords did not take
These principles are (1) equal liberties of citizenship and (2) that “social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage” (2013, 586). Rawls further argues that injustice is “inequalities of social primary goods [which include income and wealth] that are not to the benefit of all” (2013, 587). While the Lead Abatement Study did reduce blood-lead levels in children who were a part of the study, the study is socially unjust and inappropriate because cost should not be a factor in correcting health-hazards in housing. Especially, when the hazard is known to be a neurotoxicant. Placing the study within context, lead-paint poisoning continues to be an “environmental health problem in the United States” (Pollak, 2004, 92). What the lead study of 1992 did was reinforce structural injustice. The study was not a solution towards the underlying problem of lead-paint in housing. The study was a cost-effective band-aid approach. It was a “public health outcome gap, itself rooted in growing social inequalities” (Framer, 2004, 28). While Buchanan justifies “less-expensive, less-effective public health interventions [in one way as] resource or political constraints that do not allow full provision of the higher standard,” the truth is, as Pollak notes it, is not that there were resource constraints, rather “society was not committed” (Buchanan, 2006, 1) (Pollak, 2004, 95). Moreover, the study raises concerns as a social justice issue because the study noted that only landlords could apply to the State loan program for a home to undergo lead reduction improvements. Why were families not given the opportunity to apply for such improvements if their landlords did not take